Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Schmitz reference, which discloses multiple light beams that can be directed to measurements in a close neighborhood within the field of view of the system, does not teach their limitation of the two coded light transmissions being directed to “a same target location” in the FOV. MPEP 2111.01.I states: “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.” Applicant’s specifications in paragraph [0051] states that the transmissions can be directed towards the target, where “the target” could be “one or more target objects or a target field of view”. Furthermore, applicant’s Fig. 1 only illustrates the target 108 as a flat plane. The specifications do not further describe what a “same target location” is and how large/small this “target location is”. Figs. 2A and 2B also do not illustrate what a “same target location” is because they only illustrate a design of a mobile device that is configured to perform ranging measurements. These figures do not show how the transmissions are directed to “a same target location” in the field of view. Paragraph [0031] states that the transmissions can spatially overlap, and that the transmissions can be configured with a narrow angle of divergence, such that the beams remain non-overlapping as well. This paragraph also states that the beams can be pointed at different parts of the field of view, or different parts of a same target. So, this limitation, under BRI and in view of the specifications, could be interpreted to mean (1) the first and second coded light transmissions are directed towards the location of a single target in the larger FOV; (2) the FOV is divided into pixels or vertical/horizontal slices, and both of the transmissions are directed towards the same slice/pixel of the FOV; or (3) the two transmissions are supposed to completely overlap (spatially) when they are incident on a single target in the FOV, just to name a few examples.
Furthermore, as described by Schmitz in paragraph [0054] and as outlined in the Office Action mailed on 12/17/2025 (on pages 7, 11, 20, 24, and 27-28), the transmissions disclosed by Schmitz are coded differently such that the measurement points of the different transmissions (from individual transmitters) can be in a close neighborhood. According to Schmitz, if the transmissions were to be coded the same, then the measurement points would need to be far enough apart in order for the individual transmissions to be distinguishable. Schmitz then provides a solution in a further embodiment, stating that if the different transmissions were encoded differently, then the measurement points can be in a close neighborhood. Since the limitation of “a same target location” is broadly interpreted, this teaching by Schmitz, where measurement points can be in “close neighborhood”, reads on the claim.
Therefore, the amendments and accompanying arguments are not convincing and the rejections are maintained.
Furthermore, on page 14 of the remarks, applicant mistakenly alleges that the Bao reference does not “[disclose] or [suggest] directing multiple coded light transmissions toward the same target location within a field of view, as required by amended claim 1.” The Bao reference clearly illustrates this exact limitation in Figs. 8, 9A, and 9B. In Figs. 8 and 9A, the differently coded emissions are directed towards the same location on the target object 606. This is contrasted by another embodiment contemplated by the Bao reference, which is illustrated in Fig. 9B, where differently coded pulses are directed along distinct paths and are incident on different locations of the object 606. This is also explained and mapped out in the Office Action mailed on 12/17/2025 (See pages 8, 13, 20-21, 24-25, and 29).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8, 12-15, 18-30, 34-37, 40-44, 52, and 60-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (US 20190310370 A1), in view of Bao (US 11953601 B2), further in view of Kotelnikov (US 20170176576 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Schmitz discloses a method, on a device (Fig. 4, sensor 10; [0051]), for performing range estimation comprising:
determining an at least one code sequence ([0054] light beams 18a1-3 and 18b1-3 have different coding patterns; [0017] pulse sequences on different transmission light beams are different from each other and are orthogonal to one another),
sending the at least one code sequence as an at least one coded light transmission toward one or more targets using an at least one light source (Fig. 4, light sources 12a and 12b emit beams 18a1-3 and 18b1-3 towards the environment), wherein the at least one code sequence is encoded as an amplitude-based code over time, or as a wavelength-based code over time, or as a combination thereof, in the at least one coded transmission ([0015] the modulation of the transmitted light beams creates a pulse sequence coding. Emitting a sequence of pulses in time results in amplitude coding over time);
receiving a reflected version of the at least one coded light transmission from the one or more targets, as a reflected light signal (Fig. 4, [0039-0040] light receiver 24 receives light reflected back from environment and due to pulse coding, simultaneous measurements with several beams is possible);
processing the reflected light signal by correlating the reflected light signal with the at least one code sequence, to generate a time of flight value for the at least one coded light transmission ([0039] control and evaluation unit correlates received signals with the code sequences to determine the time of flight of the light, and then determine the distance therefrom; [0040] due to pulse coding, it is possible to simultaneously measure distance with several transmission beams; [0013] the many reception signals are correlated with their associated pulse sequence coding to determine their respective distance values); and
generating a range estimate for the at least one coded light transmission based on the time of flight value ([0013] and [0039] the many reception signals are correlated with their associated pulse sequence coding to determine their time of flight value, and then their respective distance values),
wherein the first coded light transmission and the second coded light transmission overlap in time and are directed toward a same target location within a field of view ([0054] and Fig. 4, light beams 18a1 and 18b2 are directed to points 28a1 and 28b2. In this configuration with multiple individual transmitters, it is possible for the measurement points to be in a close neighborhood. Here “close neighborhood” means that if the transmissions were coded with the same code, they would be indistinguishable. This reads on the limitation of “a same target location”).
However, Schmitz does not expressly teach: wherein the at least one coded light transmission comprises a first coded light transmission for a first depth range and a second coded light transmission for a second depth range […] wherein the receiving the reflected version of the at least one coded light transmission as a reflected light signal, comprises (1) operating an at least one receiver only during a first receive window associated with a first range of round trip delays corresponding to the first depth range and (2) operating the at least one receiver only during a second receive window associated with a second range of roundtrip delays corresponding to the second depth range.
Bao teaches a device that emits coded light transmissions where the codes are amplitude and wavelength based (Fig. 8, LiDAR system 600 emits pulses 602 and 800, where they have different amplitudes and wavelengths; Col. 11 ln 21-23) and receives coded light sequences (Fig. 10, pulses of different wavelengths can be separated by wavelength;) and generating a range estimate for the at least one coded light transmission based on the time of flight value (Col. 11, ln 21-43, pulses 602 and 800 have different amplitude and wavelength, and higher amplitude light pulse will result in stronger corresponding returned pulse for far objects compared to lower amplitude light pulse. However, lower amplitude light pulse will not oversaturate the detector at close distances, unlike high amplitude pulses. Therefore, based off which returned signal produces a detectable signal, a range can be determined),
wherein the at least one coded light transmission comprises a first coded light transmission for a first depth range and a second coded light transmission for a second depth range (Col. 11, ln 21-43, pulses 602 and 800 have different amplitude and wavelength. High amplitude pulses yield detectable signals from far objects, while low amplitude pulses produce signals that will not oversaturate the detector for close objects), and
wherein the first and second coded light transmissions overlap in time and are directed towards a target location of a field of view (Fig. 8, both pulses 602 and 800 are directed at the same region of the object 606. This is different compared to the example in Fig. 9B, where different pulses are emitted along different paths. Col. 12, ln 5-7, in the configuration of Fig. 8, the light pulses 602 and 800 can be transmitted concurrently so they overlap).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coded light transmission scheme disclosed by Schmitz, by incorporating the transmission scheme taught by Bao, where the beams are directed at the same target and pulses are encoded with different wavelengths and amplitudes. This will allow the system to have a larger dynamic range because the use of two pulses with different wavelengths and amplitudes results in the system being able to receive at least one detectable signal; since high amplitude pulses can oversaturate the detector at close distances, and low amplitude pulses can be undetectable at long distances, emitting pulses with high and low amplitudes will allow the system to reliably detect both near and far distances. Furthermore, using different wavelengths for these signals enables the detector to determine which transmitted pulse corresponds to which return pulse (Bao, Col. 11, ln 21-43).
However, this combination still does not expressly teach wherein the receiving the reflected version of the at least one coded light transmission as a reflected light signal, comprises (1) operating an at least one receiver only during a first receive window associated with a first range of round trip delays corresponding to the first depth range and (2) operating the at least one receiver only during a second receive window associated with a second range of roundtrip delays corresponding to the second depth range.
However, Kotelnikov teaches this limitation with Figs. 7-9 and paragraph [0054]: “processor 702 is operative for logically separating detection field 114 into detection zones 704-1 through 704-3 (referred to, collectively, as zones 704)—each of which corresponds to a different sub-gate period within each detection frame.” Furthermore, in reference to Fig. 9, steps 902 and 905 for arming and disarming SPAD 502 respectively, show that the SPAD is only operational during the sub-gate period corresponding to its detection zone. In regards to disarming the SPAD at step 905, paragraph [0064] recites: “At sub-operation 905, SPAD 502 is disarmed at time td-i-j. Time td-i-j corresponds to the time-of-flight for a photon between vehicle 108 and point 708-j, which is the point in zone 704-j furthest from vehicle 108 on detection axis 112.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device taught by Schmitz in view of Bao, by implementing the range gating taught by Kotelnikov, where the individual SPADs are only operational during the time frame corresponding to its detection zone. This is beneficial because “by dividing each detection frame into smaller time intervals in which SPAD 502 is armed, the probability of a false count during each sub-gate period can be greatly reduced” (Kotelnikov, [0053]).
Regarding Claim 23: Schmitz discloses an apparatus for performing range estimation (Fig. 4, sensor 10; [0051]) comprising:
an at least one light source (Fig. 4, light sources 12a and 12b);
an at least one sensor (Fig. 4, light receiver 24);
a processor communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor and the at least one light source ([0039] control and evaluation unit 26 connected to the light transmitters 12 and light receiver 24; Fig. 4); wherein the processor is configured to:
determine an at least one code sequence ([0054] light beams 18a1-3 and 18b1-3 have different coding patterns; [0017] pulse sequences on different transmission light beams are different from each other and are orthogonal to one another),
cause the at least one light source to send the at least one code sequence as an at least one coded light transmission toward one or more targets (Fig. 4, light sources 12a and 12b emit beams 18a1-3 and 18b1-3 towards the environment), wherein the at least one code sequence is encoded as an amplitude-based code over time, or as a wavelength-based code over time, or as a combination thereof, in the at least one coded transmission ([0015] the modulation of the transmitted light beams creates a pulse sequence coding. Emitting a sequence of pulses in time results in amplitude coding over time);
cause a reflected version of the at least one coded light transmission to be received at the at least one sensor from the one or more targets, as a reflected light signal (Fig. 4, [0039-0040] light receiver 24 receives light reflected back from environment and due to pulse coding, simultaneous measurements with several beams is possible);
correlate the reflected light signal with the at least one code sequence, to generate a time of flight value for the at least one coded light transmission ([0039] control and evaluation unit correlates received signals with the code sequences to determine the time of flight of the light, and then determine the distance therefrom; [0040] due to pulse coding, it is possible to simultaneously measure distance with several transmission beams; [0013] the many reception signals are correlated with their associated pulse sequence coding to determine their respective distance values); and
generate a range estimate for the at least one coded light transmission based on the time of flight value ([0013] and [0039] the many reception signals are correlated with their associated pulse sequence coding to determine their time of flight and then determine their respective distance values),
wherein the first coded light transmission and the second coded light transmission overlap in time and are directed toward a same target location within a field of view ([0054] and Fig. 4, light beams 18a1 and 18b2 are directed to points 28a1 and 28b2. These measured points are close enough that if they had the same pulse sequence, it would not be possible to differentiate them. This eliminates the neighborhood constraint where measured spots require large enough spatial separation).
However, Schmitz does not expressly teach: a memory and that the processor is also communicatively coupled to the memory, or wherein the at least one coded light transmission comprises a first coded light transmission for a first depth range and a second coded light transmission for a second depth range […] wherein the receiving the reflected version of the at least one coded light transmission as a reflected light signal, comprises (1) operating an at least one receiver only during a first receive window associated with a first range of round trip delays corresponding to the first depth range and (2) operating the at least one receiver only during a second receive window associated with a second range of roundtrip delays corresponding to the second depth range.
Bao teaches a device that emits coded light transmissions where the codes are amplitude and wavelength based (Fig. 8, LiDAR system 600 emits pulses 602 and 800, where they have different amplitudes and wavelengths; Col. 11 ln 21-23) and receives coded light sequences (Fig. 10, pulses of different wavelengths can be separated by wavelength;) and generating a range estimate for the at least one coded light transmission based on the time of flight value (Col. 11, ln 21-43, pulses 602 and 800 have different amplitude and wavelength, and higher amplitude light pulse will result in stronger corresponding returned pulse for far objects compared to lower amplitude light pulse. However, lower amplitude light pulse will not oversaturate the detector at close distances, unlike high amplitude pulses. Therefore, based off which returned signal produces a detectable signal, a range can be determined),
wherein the at least one coded light transmission comprises a first coded light transmission for a first depth range and a second coded light transmission for a second depth range (Col. 11, ln 21-43, pulses 602 and 800 have different amplitude and wavelength. High amplitude pulses yield detectable signals from far objects, while low amplitude pulses produce signals that will not oversaturate the detector for close objects), and
wherein the first and second coded light transmissions overlap in time and are directed towards a same target location within a field of view (Fig. 8, both pulses 602 and 800 are directed at the same region of the object 606. This is different compared to the example in Fig. 9B, where different pulses are emitted along different paths. Col. 12, ln 5-7, in the configuration of Fig. 8, the light pulses 602 and 800 can be transmitted concurrently so they overlap).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coded light transmission scheme disclosed by Schmitz, by incorporating the transmission scheme taught by Bao, where the beams are directed at the same target and pulses are encoded with different wavelengths and amplitudes. This will allow the system to have a larger dynamic range because the use of two pulses with different wavelengths and amplitudes results in the system being able to receive at least one detectable signal; since high amplitude pulses can oversaturate the detector at close distances, and low amplitude pulses can be undetectable at long distances, emitting pulses with high and low amplitudes will allow the system to reliably detect both near and far distances. Furthermore, using different wavelengths for these signals enables the detector to determine which transmitted pulse corresponds to which return pulse (Bao, Col. 11, ln 21-43).
However, this combination still does not expressly teach a memory and that the processor is also communicatively coupled to the memory, or wherein the receiving the reflected version of the at least one coded light transmission as a reflected light signal, comprises (1) operating an at least one receiver only during a first receive window associated with a first range of round trip delays corresponding to the first depth range and (2) operating the at least one receiver only during a second receive window associated with a second range of roundtrip delays corresponding to the second depth range.
Kotelnikov teaches storing information using a memory ([0062] memory stores information like detection time) and that a processor is communicatively coupled to the memory and the sensor and the light source (Fig. 7, processor 702 coupled to the transmitter 102 and receiver 104. [0062] if processor can save information to memory, they are communicatively coupled).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus taught by Schmitz and Bao by incorporating a memory that is communicatively coupled to the processor, as taught by Kotelnikov. This would be the combination of two prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of having memory in the processor. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale A.
However, this current combination still does not expressly teach wherein the receiving the reflected version of the at least one coded light transmission as a reflected light signal, comprises (1) operating an at least one receiver only during a first receive window associated with a first range of round trip delays corresponding to the first depth range and (2) operating the at least one receiver only during a second receive window associated with a second range of roundtrip delays corresponding to the second depth range.
However, Kotelnikov further teaches this limitation with Figs. 7-9 and paragraph [0054]: “processor 702 is operative for logically separating detection field 114 into detection zones 704-1 through 704-3 (referred to, collectively, as zones 704)—each of which corresponds to a different sub-gate period within each detection frame.” Furthermore, in reference to Fig. 9, steps 902 and 905 for arming and disarming SPAD 502 respectively, show that the SPAD is only operational during the sub-gate period corresponding to its detection zone. In regards to disarming the SPAD at step 905, paragraph [0064] recites: “At sub-operation 905, SPAD 502 is disarmed at time td-i-j. Time td-i-j corresponds to the time-of-flight for a photon between vehicle 108 and point 708-j, which is the point in zone 704-j furthest from vehicle 108 on detection axis 112.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device taught by Schmitz in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, by implementing the range gating taught by Kotelnikov, where the individual SPADs are only operational during the time frame corresponding to its detection zone. This is beneficial because “by dividing each detection frame into smaller time intervals in which SPAD 502 is armed, the probability of a false count during each sub-gate period can be greatly reduced” (Kotelnikov, [0053]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 24: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 23. Schmitz further discloses the at least one light source comprises a one dimensional array of light sources ([0021] “The light transmitter preferably comprises a line array of light sources”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 25: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the method of claim 2 and the apparatus of claim 24. Schmitz further discloses the one dimensional array of light sources comprises a first light source configured to emit a first coded light transmission based on a first code sequence (Fig. 4, light source 12a; [0054] all the transmitted beams 18a1, 18a2, and 18a3, come from transmitter 12a and are coded with a first pulse sequence pattern) and a second light source configured to emit a second coded light transmission based on a second code sequence orthogonal to the first code sequence (Fig. 4, light source 12b; [0054] all the transmitted beams 18b1, 18b2, and 18b3, come from transmitter 12b and are coded with a pulse sequence pattern that is different from the pulse sequence of the first transmitter 12a; [0017] “The pulse sequences modulated on the plurality of transmission light beams preferably are different from one another, in particular orthogonal to one another”).
Regarding Claims 4 and 26: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 23. However, this current combination of Schmitz, Bao, and Kotelnikov, does not teach wherein the at least one light source comprises a two dimensional array of light sources.
However, Kotelnikov further teaches the at least one light source comprises a two dimensional array of light sources ([0049] the system 100 includes a two dimensional array of transmitters).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the arrangement of the light sources in the apparatus taught by Schmitz, Bao, and Kotelnikov, such that the light sources form a 2-D array as taught by Kotelnikov. This would be a different design option of a transmitter array and would be a predictable variation to a person of ordinary skill in the art. This would yield the predictable result of using the transmitter array with at least one transmitter to direct light into the environment in order to obtain distance measurements. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F.
Regarding Claims 5 and 27: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the method of claim 4 and the apparatus of claim 26. In this combination, Schmitz further discloses that the two-dimensional array of light sources comprises a first light source configured to emit a first coded light transmission based on a first code sequence (Fig. 4, light source 12a; [0054] all the transmitted beams 18a1, 18a2, and 18a3, come from transmitter 12a and are coded with a first pulse sequence pattern) and a second light source configured to emit a second coded light transmission based on a second code sequence orthogonal to the first code sequence (Fig. 4, light source 12b; [0054] all the transmitted beams 18b1, 18b2, and 18b3, come from transmitter 12b and are coded with a pulse sequence pattern that is different from the pulse sequence of the first transmitter 12a; [0017] “The pulse sequences modulated on the plurality of transmission light beams preferably are different from one another, in particular orthogonal to one another”).
Regarding Claims 6 and 28: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 23. However, this current combination of Schmitz, Bao, and Kotelnikov, does not teach wherein the at least one light source comprises at least two non-adjacent light sources.
Bao teaches a system wherein the at least one light source comprises at least two non-adjacent light sources (Fig. 1A, there are many lidar scanners 110A-F that are all connected to a centralized laser delivery system 101, but are arranged non-adjacently).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system taught by Schmitz, Bao, and Kotelnikov, by modifying the arrangement of the light sources such that they are non-adjacent and arranged at different locations on a vehicle, as further taught by Bao. This is beneficial because having a centralized system for controlling the transmitted beams, while positioning the individual LIDAR scanners around a vehicle, offers finer control over field of view that is scanned. For example, when the vehicle is moving forward, the field of view in front of the vehicle would need to be scanned but it would not be necessary to scan the field of view behind the vehicle (Bao, Col. 5 ln 1-15).
Regarding Claims 7 and 29: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 23. Schmitz further discloses wherein the at least one code sequence comprises a plurality of orthogonal code sequences ([0017] “The pulse sequences modulated on the plurality of transmission light beams preferably are different from one another, in particular orthogonal to one another”).
Regarding Claims 8 and 30: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the method of claim 7 and the apparatus of claim 29. Schmitz further discloses wherein each of the plurality of orthogonal code sequences is transmitted by a different light source, of the at least one light source ([0054] transmission light beams of a same individual light transmitter 12a or 12b, are coded with the same pulse sequence. Each light source has its own orthogonal code sequence).
Regarding Claims 12 and 34: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 23. In this combination, Bao teaches the processor is configured to cause the first coded light transmission to be sent using light emitted at a first wavelength, and the second coded light transmission is to be sent using light emitted at a second wavelength different from the first wavelength (Col. 11, ln 21-24, Fig. 8, pulses 602 and 800 are different wavelengths).
Regarding Claims 13 and 35: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 23. In this combination, Schmitz discloses wherein the at least one coded light transmission spans as a plurality of transmission opportunities, as a plurality of chips, along a time axis ([0036] “The preferred pulse sequences are binary codes whose ones correspond to the pulses”).
Regarding Claims 14 and 36: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 23. In this combination, Bao teaches wherein the at least one coded light transmission spans as a plurality of transmission opportunities, as a plurality of wavelength bands, along a wavelength axis (Col. 11, ln 21-24, Fig. 8, pulses 602 and 800 are different wavelengths).
Regarding Claims 15 and 37: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 23. Schmitz further discloses wherein the at least one light source comprises an at least one LED ([0034] the light transmitters 12 can be arrangements of LEDs).
Regarding Claims 18 and 40: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 23. Schmitz further discloses wherein the at least one light source comprises an at least one VCSEL ([0034] the light transmitters 12 can be a VCSEL array).
Regarding Claims 19 and 41: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the method of claim 18 and the apparatus of claim 40. However, this combination does not expressly teach wherein the at least one VCSEL is within a two dimensional array of VCSELs.
Kotelnikov teaches a two dimensional array of light transmitters ([0049] the system 100 includes a two dimensional array of transmitters).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the arrangement of the VCSELs in the apparatus taught by Schmitz, Bao, and Kotelnikov, such that the light sources form a 2-D array as taught by Kotelnikov. This would be a different design option of a transmitter array and would be a predictable variation to a person of ordinary skill in the art. This would yield the predictable result of using the transmitter array with at least one transmitter to direct light into the environment in order to obtain distance measurements. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F.
Regarding Claims 20 and 42: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 23. Schmitz further discloses wherein the reflected light signal is received using an at least one CMOS image sensor ([0038] the light receiver array can be a CMOS sensor).
Regarding Claims 21 and 43: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 23. Schmitz further discloses wherein the reflected light signal is received using an at least one SPAD ([0038] the light receiver 24 is an array of SPADs).
Regarding Claims 22 and 44: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the method of claim 21 and the apparatus of claim 43. Schmitz further discloses wherein the at least one SPAD is within a two dimensional array of SPADs (Fig. 4, the receiver 24 is a 2D array of SPADs; [0038]).
Regarding Claim 52: Schmitz discloses an apparatus for performing range estimation (Fig. 4, sensor 10; [0051]) comprising:
a code generator configured to determine an at least one code sequence ([0039] and Fig. 4, control and evaluation unit 26 is communicatively coupled to the light transmitters 12 to activate and modulate the light transmission in accordance with determined pulse sequences);
an at least one light source for sending the at least one code sequence as an at least one coded light transmission toward one or more targets (Fig. 4, light transmitters 12a and 12b), wherein the at least one code sequence is encoded as an amplitude-based code over time, or as a wavelength-based code over time, or as a combination thereof, in the at least one coded transmission ([0015] the modulation of the transmitted light beams creates a pulse sequence coding. Emitting a sequence of pulses in time results in amplitude coding over time); and
an at least one sensor for receiving a reflected version of the at least one coded light transmission from the one or more targets, as a reflected light signal (Fig. 4, [0039-0040] light receiver 24 receives light reflected back from environment and due to pulse coding, simultaneous measurements with several beams is possible),
wherein the apparatus is configured to correlate the reflected light signal with the at least one code sequence, to generate a time of flight value for the at least one coded light transmission and generate a range estimation for the at least one coded light transmission based on the time of flight value ([0040] due to pulse coding, it is possible to simultaneously measure distance with several transmission beams; [0013] the many reception signals are correlated with their associated pulse sequence coding to determine their respective distance values; [0039] control and evaluation unit correlates received signals with the code sequences to determine the time of flight of the light, and then determine the distance therefrom),
wherein the first coded light transmission and the second coded light transmission overlap in time and are directed toward a target location within a field of view ([0054] and Fig. 4, light beams 18a1 and 18b2 are directed to points 28a1 and 28b2. These measured points are close enough that if they had the same pulse sequence, it would not be possible to differentiate them. This eliminates the neighborhood constraint where measured spots require large enough spatial separation).
Schmitz does not expressly teach: wherein the at least one coded light transmission comprises a first coded light transmission for a first depth range and a second coded light transmission for a second depth range […] wherein the system is configured to receive the reflected version of the at least one coded light transmission as a reflected light signal, by (1) operating an at least one receiver only during a first receive window associated with a first range of round trip delays corresponding to the first depth range and (2) operating the at least one receiver only during a second receive window associated with a second range of roundtrip delays corresponding to the second depth range.
Bao teaches a device that emits coded light transmissions where the codes are amplitude and wavelength based (Fig. 8, LiDAR system 600 emits pulses 602 and 800, where they have different amplitudes and wavelengths; Col. 11 ln 21-23) and receives coded light sequences (Fig. 10, pulses of different wavelengths can be separated by wavelength;) and generating a range estimate for the at least one coded light transmission based on the time of flight value (Col. 11, ln 21-43, pulses 602 and 800 have different amplitude and wavelength, and higher amplitude light pulse will result in stronger corresponding returned pulse for far objects compared to lower amplitude light pulse. However, lower amplitude light pulse will not oversaturate the detector at close distances, unlike high amplitude pulses. Therefore, based off which returned signal produces a detectable signal, a range can be determined),
wherein the at least one coded light transmission comprises a first coded light transmission for a first depth range and a second coded light transmission for a second depth range (Col. 11, ln 21-43, pulses 602 and 800 have different amplitude and wavelength. High amplitude pulses yield detectable signals from far objects, while low amplitude pulses produce signals that will not oversaturate the detector for close objects), and
wherein the first and second coded light transmissions overlap in time and are directed towards a same target location within a field of view (Fig. 8, both pulses 602 and 800 are directed at the same region of the object 606. This is different compared to the example in Fig. 9B, where different pulses are emitted along different paths. Col. 12, ln 5-7, in the configuration of Fig. 8, the light pulses 602 and 800 can be transmitted concurrently so they overlap).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coded light transmission scheme disclosed by Schmitz, by incorporating the coding scheme taught by Bao, where pulses are encoded with different wavelengths and amplitudes. This will allow the system to have a larger dynamic range because the use of two pulses with different wavelengths and amplitudes results in the system being able to receive at least one detectable signal; since high amplitude pulses can oversaturate the detector at close distances, and low amplitude pulses can be undetectable at long distances, emitting pulses with high and low amplitudes will allow the system to reliably detect both near and far distances. Furthermore, using different wavelengths for these signals enables the detector to determine which transmitted pulse corresponds to which return pulse (Bao, Col. 11, ln 21-43).
However, this combination still does not expressly teach wherein the system is configured to receive the reflected version of the at least one coded light transmission as a reflected light signal, by (1) operating an at least one receiver only during a first receive window associated with a first range of round trip delays corresponding to the first depth range and (2) operating the at least one receiver only during a second receive window associated with a second range of roundtrip delays corresponding to the second depth range.
However, Kotelnikov teaches this limitation with Figs. 7-9 and paragraph [0054]: “processor 702 is operative for logically separating detection field 114 into detection zones 704-1 through 704-3 (referred to, collectively, as zones 704)—each of which corresponds to a different sub-gate period within each detection frame.” Furthermore, in reference to Fig. 9, steps 902 and 905 for arming and disarming SPAD 502 respectively, show that the SPAD is only operational during the sub-gate period corresponding to its detection zone. In regards to disarming the SPAD at step 905, paragraph [0064] recites: “At sub-operation 905, SPAD 502 is disarmed at time td-i-j. Time td-i-j corresponds to the time-of-flight for a photon between vehicle 108 and point 708-j, which is the point in zone 704-j furthest from vehicle 108 on detection axis 112.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device taught by Schmitz in view of Bao, by implementing the range gating taught by Kotelnikov, where the individual SPADs are only operational during the time frame corresponding to its detection zone. This is beneficial because “by dividing each detection frame into smaller time intervals in which SPAD 502 is armed, the probability of a false count during each sub-gate period can be greatly reduced” (Kotelnikov, [0053]).
Regarding Claim 60: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the apparatus of claim 53. Schmitz further discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises:
a correlator configured to correlate the reflected light signal with the at least one code sequence, to generate the time of flight value ([0039] control and evaluation unit 26 correlates each of the received signals with the pulse sequence used to modulate its associated transmission light beam to determine a flight time of the light); and
a range computation module for generating the range estimate for the at least one coded light transmission based on the time of flight value ([0039] control and evaluation unit 26, after obtaining the time of flight of the light, determines the distance from these time of flight measurements).
Regarding Claim 61: Schmitz discloses a system, on a device, for performing range estimation (Fig. 4, sensor 10; [0051]) comprising:
means for determining an at least one code sequence ([0039] and Fig. 4, control and evaluation unit 26 is communicatively coupled to the light transmitters 12 to activate and modulate the light transmission in accordance with determined pulse sequences);
means for sending the at least one code sequence as an at least one coded light transmission toward one or more targets using an at least one light source (Fig. 4, light transmitters 12a and 12b), wherein the at least one code sequence is encoded as an amplitude-based code over time, or as a wavelength-based code over time, or as a combination thereof, in the at least one coded transmission ([0015] the modulation of the transmitted light beams creates a pulse sequence coding. Emitting a sequence of pulses in time results in amplitude coding over time);
means for receiving a reflected version of the at least one coded light transmission from the one or more targets, as a reflected light signal (Fig. 4, [0039-0040] light receiver 24 receives light reflected back from environment and due to pulse coding);
means for processing the reflected light signal by correlating the reflected light signal with the at least one code sequence, to generate a time of flight value for the at least one coded light transmission ([0039] control and evaluation unit 26 correlates each received signal with the pulse sequences do identify which received signal corresponds to which transmitted signal, and generates a light time of flight to measuring points of scanned objects); and
means for generating a range estimate for the at least one coded light transmission based on the time of flight value ([0039] control and evaluation unit 26 determines distance to object based on the light time of flight);
wherein the first coded light transmission and the second coded light transmission overlap in time and are directed toward a same target location within a field of view ([0054] and Fig. 4, light beams 18a1 and 18b2 are directed to points 28a1 and 28b2. These measured points are close enough that if they had the same pulse sequence, it would not be possible to differentiate them. This eliminates the neighborhood constraint where measured spots require large enough spatial separation).
Schmitz does not expressly teach: wherein the at least one coded light transmission comprises a first coded light transmission for a first depth range and a second coded light transmission for a second depth range […] wherein the system is configured to receive the reflected version of the at least one coded light transmission as a reflected light signal, by (1) operating an at least one receiver only during a first receive window associated with a first range of round trip delays corresponding to the first depth range and (2) operating the at least one receiver only during a second receive window associated with a second range of roundtrip delays corresponding to the second depth range.
Bao teaches a device that emits coded light transmissions where the codes are amplitude and wavelength based (Fig. 8, LiDAR system 600 emits pulses 602 and 800, where they have different amplitudes and wavelengths; Col. 11 ln 21-23) and receives coded light sequences (Fig. 10, pulses of different wavelengths can be separated by wavelength;) and generating a range estimate for the at least one coded light transmission based on the time of flight value (Col. 11, ln 21-43, pulses 602 and 800 have different amplitude and wavelength, and higher amplitude light pulse will result in stronger corresponding returned pulse for far objects compared to lower amplitude light pulse. However, lower amplitude light pulse will not oversaturate the detector at close distances, unlike high amplitude pulses. Therefore, based off which returned signal produces a detectable signal, a range can be determined),
wherein the at least one coded light transmission comprises a first coded light transmission for a first depth range and a second coded light transmission for a second depth range (Col. 11, ln 21-43, pulses 602 and 800 have different amplitude and wavelength. High amplitude pulses yield detectable signals from far objects, while low amplitude pulses produce signals that will not oversaturate the detector for close objects), and
wherein the first and second coded light transmissions overlap in time and are directed towards a same target location within a field of view (Fig. 8, both pulses 602 and 800 are directed at the same region of the object 606. This is different compared to the example in Fig. 9B, where different pulses are emitted along different paths. Col. 12, ln 5-7, in the configuration of Fig. 8, the light pulses 602 and 800 can be transmitted concurrently so they overlap).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coded light transmission scheme disclosed by Schmitz, by incorporating the coding scheme taught by Bao, where pulses are encoded with different wavelengths and amplitudes. This will allow the system to have a larger dynamic range because the use of two pulses with different wavelengths and amplitudes results in the system being able to receive at least one detectable signal; since high amplitude pulses can oversaturate the detector at close distances, and low amplitude pulses can be undetectable at long distances, emitting pulses with high and low amplitudes will allow the system to reliably detect both near and far distances. Furthermore, using different wavelengths for these signals enables the detector to determine which transmitted pulse corresponds to which return pulse (Bao, Col. 11, ln 21-43).
However, this combination still does not expressly teach wherein the system is configured to receive the reflected version of the at least one coded light transmission as a reflected light signal, by (1) operating an at least one receiver only during a first receive window associated with a first range of round trip delays corresponding to the first depth range and (2) operating the at least one receiver only during a second receive window associated with a second range of roundtrip delays corresponding to the second depth range.
However, Kotelnikov teaches this limitation with Figs. 7-9 and paragraph [0054]: “processor 702 is operative for logically separating detection field 114 into detection zones 704-1 through 704-3 (referred to, collectively, as zones 704)—each of which corresponds to a different sub-gate period within each detection frame.” Furthermore, in reference to Fig. 9, steps 902 and 905 for arming and disarming SPAD 502 respectively, show that the SPAD is only operational during the sub-gate period corresponding to its detection zone. In regards to disarming the SPAD at step 905, paragraph [0064] recites: “At sub-operation 905, SPAD 502 is disarmed at time td-i-j. Time td-i-j corresponds to the time-of-flight for a photon between vehicle 108 and point 708-j, which is the point in zone 704-j furthest from vehicle 108 on detection axis 112.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device taught by Schmitz in view of Bao, by implementing the range gating taught by Kotelnikov, where the individual SPADs are only operational during the time frame corresponding to its detection zone. This is beneficial because “by dividing each detection frame into smaller time intervals in which SPAD 502 is armed, the probability of a false count during each sub-gate period can be greatly reduced” (Kotelnikov, [0053]).
Regarding Claim 62: Schmitz discloses instructions for one or more processing units (Fig. 4, control and evaluation unit 26) to:
determine an at least one code sequence ([0054] light beams 18a1-3 and 18b1-3 have different coding patterns; [0017] pulse sequences on different transmission light beams are different from each other and are orthogonal to one another),
send the at least one code sequence as an at least one coded light transmission toward one or more targets using an at least one light source (Fig. 4, light sources 12a and 12b emit beams 18a1-3 and 18b1-3 towards the environment), wherein the at least one code sequence is encoded as an amplitude-based code over time, or as a wavelength-based code over time, or as a combination thereof, in the at least one coded transmission ([0015] the modulation of the transmitted light beams creates a pulse sequence coding. Emitting a sequence of pulses in time results in amplitude coding over time);
receive a reflected version of the at least one coded light transmission from the one or more targets, as a reflected light signal (Fig. 4, [0039-0040] light receiver 24 receives light reflected back from environment and due to pulse coding, simultaneous measurements with several beams is possible);
process the reflected light signal by correlating the reflected light signal with the at least one code sequence, to generate a time of flight value for the at least one coded light transmission ([0039] control and evaluation unit correlates received signals with the code sequences to determine the time of flight of the light, and then determine the distance therefrom; [0040] due to pulse coding, it is possible to simultaneously measure distance with several transmission beams; [0013] the many reception signals are correlated with their associated pulse sequence coding to determine their respective distance values); and
generate a range estimate for the at least one coded light transmission based on the time of flight value ([0013] and [0039] the many reception signals are correlated with their associated pulse sequence coding to determine their time of flight value, and then their respective distance values),
wherein the first coded light transmission and the second coded light transmission overlap in time and are directed toward a same target location within a field of view ([0054] and Fig. 4, light beams 18a1 and 18b2 are directed to points 28a1 and 28b2. These measured points are close enough that if they had the same pulse sequence, it would not be possible to differentiate them. This eliminates the neighborhood constraint where measured spots require large enough spatial separation).
However, Schmitz does not expressly teach: a non transitory computer readable medium storing therein for execution by one or more processing units, instructions to […] wherein the at least one coded light transmission comprises a first coded light transmission for a first depth range and a second coded light transmission for a second depth range […] wherein non transitory computer readable medium further comprise instructions to receive the reflected version of the at least one coded light transmission, as a reflected light signal, by (1) operating an at least one receiver only during a first receive window associated with a first range of round trip delays corresponding to the first depth range and (2) operating the at least one receiver only during a second receive window associated with a second range of roundtrip delays corresponding to the second depth range.
Bao teaches a non transitory computer readable medium storing therein for execution by one or more processing units, comprising instructions (Col. 13 ln 23-25, non transitory computer readable storage media is used for storing methods for distance detection detailed in the disclosure) for carrying out the distance measuring;
a device that emits coded light transmissions where the codes are amplitude and wavelength based (Fig. 8, LiDAR system 600 emits pulses 602 and 800, where they have different amplitudes and wavelengths; Col. 11 ln 21-23) and receives coded light sequences (Fig. 10, pulses of different wavelengths can be separated by wavelength;) and generating a range estimate for the at least one coded light transmission based on the time of flight value (Col. 11, ln 21-43, pulses 602 and 800 have different amplitude and wavelength, and higher amplitude light pulse will result in stronger corresponding returned pulse for far objects compared to lower amplitude light pulse. However, lower amplitude light pulse will not oversaturate the detector at close distances, unlike high amplitude pulses. Therefore, based off which returned signal produces a detectable signal, a range can be determined),
wherein the at least one coded light transmission comprises a first coded light transmission for a first depth range and a second coded light transmission for a second depth range (Col. 11, ln 21-43, pulses 602 and 800 have different amplitude and wavelength. High amplitude pulses yield detectable signals from far objects, while low amplitude pulses produce signals that will not oversaturate the detector for close objects), and
wherein the first and second coded light transmissions overlap in time and are directed towards a target location a field of view (Fig. 8, both pulses 602 and 800 are directed at the same region of the object 606. This is different compared to the example in Fig. 9B, where different pulses are emitted along different paths. Col. 12, ln 5-7, in the configuration of Fig. 8, the light pulses 602 and 800 can be transmitted concurrently so they overlap).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coded light transmission scheme disclosed by Schmitz, by incorporating the coding scheme taught by Bao, where pulses are encoded with different wavelengths and amplitudes. This will allow the system to have a larger dynamic range because the use of two pulses with different wavelengths and amplitudes results in the system being able to receive at least one detectable signal; since high amplitude pulses can oversaturate the detector at close distances, and low amplitude pulses can be undetectable at long distances, emitting pulses with high and low amplitudes will allow the system to reliably detect both near and far distances. Furthermore, using different wavelengths for these signals enables the detector to determine which transmitted pulse corresponds to which return pulse (Bao, Col. 11, ln 21-43).
It also would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system taught by Schmitz and Bao, by storing the instructions for carrying out distance measurements on non-transitory computer readable storage media, as further taught as Bao. This would be using the technique of storing instructions for carrying out distance measurements on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, to improve the known LiDAR system, to yield the predictable result of being able to store instructions on a medium. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (C).
However, this combination still does not expressly teach: wherein non transitory computer readable medium further comprise instructions to receive the reflected version of the at least one coded light transmission, as a reflected light signal, by (1) operating an at least one receiver only during a first receive window associated with a first range of round trip delays corresponding to the first depth range and (2) operating the at least one receiver only during a second receive window associated with a second range of roundtrip delays corresponding to the second depth range.
However, Kotelnikov teaches this limitation with Figs. 7-9 and paragraph [0054]: “processor 702 is operative for logically separating detection field 114 into detection zones 704-1 through 704-3 (referred to, collectively, as zones 704)—each of which corresponds to a different sub-gate period within each detection frame.” Furthermore, in reference to Fig. 9, steps 902 and 905 for arming and disarming SPAD 502 respectively, show that the SPAD is only operational during the sub-gate period corresponding to its detection zone. In regards to disarming the SPAD at step 905, paragraph [0064] recites: “At sub-operation 905, SPAD 502 is disarmed at time td-i-j. Time td-i-j corresponds to the time-of-flight for a photon between vehicle 108 and point 708-j, which is the point in zone 704-j furthest from vehicle 108 on detection axis 112.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device taught by Schmitz in view of Bao, by implementing the range gating taught by Kotelnikov, where the individual SPADs are only operational during the time frame corresponding to its detection zone. This is beneficial because “by dividing each detection frame into smaller time intervals in which SPAD 502 is armed, the probability of a false count during each sub-gate period can be greatly reduced” (Kotelnikov, [0053]).
Claims 16, 17, 38, 39, 45, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (US 20190310370 A1), in view of Bao (US 11953601 B2), further in view of Kotelnikov (US 20170176576 A1), further in view of Halbritter (DE 102017121346 A1).
Regarding Claims 16 and 38: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the method of claim 15 and the apparatus of claim 37. However, they do not teach wherein the at least one LED is further configured to provide a flash for image capture using an image sensor in the device.
Halbritter teaches this limitation in Fig. 6A and paragraph [0062]: "In the 6A shown transmitter unit 10 For example, it can be integrated into a lighting source in a mobile telephone as part of a measuring system and used as a flash light source as well as a light source for the measuring system." In Fig. 6A, the transmitter unit has a plurality of LED lighting units 12.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the light sources in the system taught by Schmitz, Bao, and Kotelnikov, by using the LED lighting units taught by Halbritter, such that these new LED lighting units can be used as both a flashlight source and a light source for performing measurements. This is beneficial because the lighting sources taught by Halbritter serve two purposes and reduces additional cost that would be needed to have separate lighting and measurement light sources (Halbritter, [0021]).
Regarding Claims 17 and 39: Schmitz, in view of Bao, Kotelnikov, and Halbritter, teaches the method of claim 16 and the apparatus of claim 38. In this combination, Halbritter further teaches wherein: the at least one LED comprises a plurality of LEDs configured to emit light of different wavelengths ([0063] “The measuring system described here can also be integrated, for example, into an RGB LED dis play, in which the entire dis play backlight can be used as a transmitter unit”), when used to provide the flash for image capture, light of different wavelengths emitted from the plurality of LEDs combine to form white light ([0062] “The transmitter unit 10 can preferably have ... light segments of different colors to generate a desired mixed-color light impression of the flash light”), and when used to send the at least one coded light transmission, light of different wavelengths from the plurality of LEDs are pulsed separately or additively to generate the at least one coded light transmission ([0060] “the transmitter signal 11 can also comprise a plurality of light pulses in the form of pulse trains generated by the respective light-emitting diode lighting units 12”).
Regarding Claims 45 and 53: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the apparatus of claim 23 and the apparatus of claim 52. However, they do not expressly teach wherein the apparatus comprises a mobile device.
Halbritter teaches the apparatus comprises a mobile device ([0062] the transmitter component can be integrated into a mobile phone; [0041] the measuring system has a lighting source that can be integrated into a mobile phone).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus taught by Schmitz, Bao, and Kotelnikov, such that the measuring device comprises a mobile device such as a mobile phone, as taught by Halbritter. Incorporating a lidar device into a mobile phone is just a different variation in use and design which is a predictable variation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make based on design incentives or other market forces. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F.
Claims 46, 48, 54, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (US 20190310370 A1), in view of Bao (US 11953601 B2), further in view of Kotelnikov (US 20170176576 A1), further in view of Yang (US 20200357276 A1).
Regarding Claims 46 and 54: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the apparatus of claim 23 and the apparatus of claim 52. However, they do not expressly teach wherein the apparatus comprises a stationary device.
Yang teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a stationary device ([0086] “a traffic control group 406 may include IoT devices along streets in a city. These IoT devices may include stoplights, traffic flow monitors, cameras, weather sensors, and the like”; RSU 5720 shown in Fig. 57 is part of traffic control group 406 because it could be a traffic light, for example, as stated in [0442]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the distance measuring apparatus taught by Schmitz, Bao, and Kotelnikov, such that it is implemented into a roadside unit that is also an internet of things device, as taught by Yang. When used in the context of a roadside unit, the LiDAR sensor can gather and save data regarding anomalies or scenes in order to reconstruct an event in the case of a traffic accident, for example (Yang, [0440-0441]). Ensuring that this apparatus also comprises an internet of things device is beneficial because different IoT devices can request and provide information to other devices autonomously through the cloud (Yang, [0088]).
Regarding Claims 48 and 56: Schmitz in view of Bao, Kotelnikov, and Yang, teaches the apparatus of claim 46 and the apparatus of claim 54. In this combination, Yang further teaches that the stationary device comprises an internet of things (IoT) device ([0086] “a traffic control group 406 may include IoT devices along streets in a city. These IoT devices may include stoplights, traffic flow monitors, cameras, weather sensors, and the like”; RSU 5720 shown in Fig. 57 is part of traffic control group 406 because it could be a traffic light, for example, as stated in [0442]).
Claims 49, 50, 57, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (US 20190310370 A1), in view of Bao (US 11953601 B2), further in view of Kotelnikov (US 20170176576 A1), further in view of Retterath (US 20160259038 A1).
Regarding Claim 49: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the apparatus of claim 23. However, they do not expressly teach wherein the at least one light source and the at least one sensor are implemented on a common semiconductor die.
Retterath teaches this limitation in Fig. 19b with array of emitters 276 and detector array 282 on device 274. Furthermore, Retterath teaches that “The electrical and optical components may be fabricated on a single semiconductor die” in paragraph [0191].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the architecture of the apparatus taught by Schmitz, Bao, and Kotelnikov, such that the light source and sensor are implemented on a single semiconductor die as taught by Retterath. This is a design variation that would be predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding Claim 50: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the apparatus of claim 23. However, they do not expressly teach wherein the at least one light source and the at least one sensor are implemented on two or more semiconductor dies within a common integrated circuit package.
Retterath teaches this limitation in Fig. 19b with array of emitters 276, detector array 282 on device 274, sharing circuitry 284. Furthermore, Retterath teaches that “The electrical and optical components ... may be fabricated on disparate die and mounted on a substrate” in paragraph [0191].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the architecture of the apparatus taught by Schmitz, Bao, and Kotelnikov, such that the light source and sensor are implemented on separate semiconductor dies while still sharing a circuit package, as taught by Retterath. This is a design variation that would be predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding Claim 57: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the apparatus of claim 52. However, they do not expressly teach wherein the code generator, the at least one light source, and the at least one sensor are implemented on a common semiconductor die.
Retterath teaches this limitation in Fig. 19b with array of emitters 276 and detector array 282 on device 274, along with circuitry 284 that controls the emitters 276 and 280. Furthermore, Retterath teaches that "The electrical and optical components may be fabricated on a single semiconductor die" in paragraph [0191].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the architecture of the apparatus taught by Schmitz, Bao, and Kotelnikov, such that the code generator, light source, and sensor, are implemented on a single semiconductor die as taught by Retterath. This is a design variation that would be predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding Claim 58: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the apparatus of claim 52. However, they do not expressly teach wherein the code generator, the at least one light source, and the at least one sensor are implemented on two or more semiconductor dies within a common integrated circuit package.
Retterath teaches this limitation in Fig. 19b with array of emitters 276, detector array 282 on device 274, sharing circuitry 284. Furthermore, Retterath teaches that “The electrical and optical components ... may be fabricated on disparate die and mounted on a substrate” in paragraph [0191].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the architecture of the apparatus taught by Schmitz, Bao, and Kotelnikov, such that the code generator, light source, and sensor, are implemented on separate semiconductor dies while still sharing a circuit package, as taught by Retterath. This is a design variation that would be predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Claims 51 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (US 20190310370 A1), in view of Bao (US 11953601 B2), further in view of Kotelnikov (US 20170176576 A1), further in view of Pacala (US 20190011567 A1).
Regarding Claim 51: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the apparatus of claim 23. However, they do not expressly teach wherein the at least one light source and the at least one sensor are implemented as two or more separate integrated circuit packages.
Pacala teaches this limitation in Fig. 1 with transmission module 106 having emitter controller 115 and processor 118, and light sensing module 108 having sensor controller 125 and processor 122.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lidar system taught by Schmitz, Bao, and Kotelnikov, by implementing the system architecture taught by Pacala, where there are separate integrated circuit packages. The separate sensor and emitter controllers taught by Pacala enable the lidar device to capture an image using only a subset of the emitters and photosensors at a time and by activating different subsets at different times (Pacala, [0074]).
Regarding Claim 59: Schmitz, in view of Bao and Kotelnikov, teaches the apparatus of claim 52. However, they do not expressly teach wherein the code generator, the at least one light source, and the at least one sensor are implemented as two or more separate integrated circuit packages.
Pacala teaches this limitation in Fig. 1 with transmission module 106 having emitter controller 115 and processor 118, and light sensing module 108 having sensor controller 125 and processor 122.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lidar system taught by Schmitz, Bao, and Kotelnikov, by implementing the system architecture taught by Pacala, where there are separate integrated circuit packages. The separate sensor and emitter controllers taught by Pacala enable the lidar device to capture an image using only a subset of the emitters and photosensors at a time and by activating different subsets at different times (Pacala, [0074]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM whose telephone number is (571)270-0570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Fridays 8am-12pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights